Quote from: JimBobOz"Me smart, u poopyhead!"

I'm always in favour of keeping things in plain English. That way, we can more easily see if they're bollocks or not.

You would be in favour of such simplicity as you have a problem reading what is actually written.

Quote from: AnthrobotBut then again most libertarians don't give a fig for anyone else's liberty but that their own.

I find it the height of irony that this accusation is coming from someone who is advocating abridging people's freedom because he doesn't like what they have to say.

Find all the irony you like Technomancer because,if I'm not hurting you or messing with your stuff, you have fuck all to say about what I do.(EDIT: The above quote is partly taken from something that Technomancer posted earlier in this thread.)

I'm just trying to figure out how this:

Quote from: AnthrobotFind all the irony you like Technomancer because,if I'm not hurting you or messing with your stuff, you have fuck all to say about what I do.

Jibes with this:

Quote from: AnthrobotThink they have a right.They do to b bigots.
Them Kristyans them have no rights, not even 2 b bigots.

Of course, the posts are getting so difficult to decipher, I could just be missing a lot of sarcasm.

Quote from: AnthrobotFind all the irony you like Technomancer because,if I'm not hurting you or messing with your stuff, you have fuck all to say about what I do.

I'm not sure if you're serious, but I agree with this post.

Do you think I should be able to compel you to take or not take some action because I find your opinion disagreeable?  Because that's what you're arguing for at the heart of it.  Or is it just the people that you disagree with that it's ok to push around?

Quote from: TechnomancerOr is it just the people that you disagree with that it's ok to push around?

I don't know about him, but I wouldn't be upset at a world where I was the deciding factor on these things.

Quote from: James J SkachI'm just trying to figure out how this:

Jibes with this:

Of course, the posts are getting so difficult to decipher, I could just be missing a lot of sarcasm.

 Naff sarcasm aside. No one is born with any innate "rights".
We have to prop up the concept of a right with the implication that action of some kind will be taken against any who abuse it.

Quote from: TechnomancerNot if it is government-mandated or -controlled.  The government has an obligation to treat everyone equally.  Private citizens, and private businesses, on the other hand, do not.

I find it ironic that when asked if you support racial segregation you gave the reply quoted above.
It is ok to segregate by race, but so long as that is "unofficial". Isn't support for racial segregation ,wether private or not, a form of bigotry?

Quote from: AnthrobotNo one is born with any innate "rights".

I was.  As a citizen of the United Kingdom, I was born with a rather vaguely defined set of rights that has since been clarified through the Human Rights Act.  To say that they don't exist or are somehow fictional borders on sophistry

They're no more artificial than any human construct

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonI was.  As a citizen of the United Kingdom, I was born with a rather vaguely defined set of rights that has since been clarified through the Human Rights Act.  To say that they don't exist or are somehow fictional borders on sophistryThey're no more artificial than any human construct

I'm glad to hear that, as I am from the UK.Rights are an artificial construct though. That have to be made/imagined and, more importantly, backed up by the implied threat of some form of action (physical force or legal action).Religious extremists seem (to me) to think that their piousness allows them to act in a hateful manner to Gays /lesbians.
I'd like to see some form of legislature to dissuade this kind of thinking.
I think fining people who discriminate against gays/ lesbians in business would not be a bad thing, as it sends a message that such behaviour is not to be tolerated in this century.

Quote from: RPGPunditHomosexuality, if it is a genetically-connected trait, is obviously one that does not depend on direct genetic inheritance. Otherwise it wouldn't last very long, would it?

Likewise, evidence seems to indicate that it is definitely biological.  It could be biological without being directly genetic.  That seems likely, since children and siblings of homosexuals don't seem any more prone to homosexuality than anyone else.  It also doesn't appear to be a learned behaviour, since children raised in homosexual/lesbian families don't seem any more prone to become homosexuals either.

The reality of it all is considerably more complicated, it would seem.

I don't see, however, how any of that makes any difference in terms of civil/human rights.  There's a ton of stuff, like, say, religion, that is obviously a "lifestyle choice" that receives protections under the law. Its an issue of freedom.  Even if homosexuality is entirely and completely a question of choice (and I really don't believe it is; nor do I see how anyone could think it is) that wouldn't affect in the least the rights of homosexuals as human beings.

RPGPundit

I subscribe each and every point on this post

When confronted to the homosexuality debate, we have to bear one important thing in mind: be it choice or genetic condition or whatever, it's a question of freedom. And as long as no one gets hurt, forced or whatever hurtful thing you may think of, that freedom should be respected and protected by all means, the same way it is protected in heterosexual relationships.

Quote from: AnthrobotI find it ironic that when asked if you support racial segregation you gave the reply quoted above.
It is ok to segregate by race, but so long as that is "unofficial". Isn't support for racial segregation ,wether private or not, a form of bigotry?

No, not any more so than my supporting any other group's free speech, freedom of association, and property rights makes me one of them.

QuoteI think fining people who discriminate against gays/ lesbians in business would not be a bad thing, as it sends a message that such behaviour is not to be tolerated in this century.

Who are you that you think someone else needs you to "tolerate" their actions before they are acceptable?  What makes your opinion so important that it gives you the power to force someone to do something they don't want to?  

Someone else could just as easily say "fining people who hire gays/lesbians would not be a bad thing, as it sends a message that such behaviour is not to be tolerated in this century".  If someone said that and got enough people behind it to pass that law, would that then be legitimate and proper?  If not, then why is it proper for your law to be passed?  What you're proposing is no different. It's "What they're doing offends me so I'm going to pass a law against it".

Quote from: TechnomancerNo, not any more so than my supporting any other group's free speech, freedom of association, and property rights makes me one of them.

Who are you that you think someone else needs you to "tolerate" their actions before they are acceptable?  What makes your opinion so important that it gives you the power to force someone to do something they don't want to?  

Someone else could just as easily say "fining people who hire gays/lesbians would not be a bad thing, as it sends a message that such behaviour is not to be tolerated in this century".  If someone said that and got enough people behind it to pass that law, would that then be legitimate and proper?  If not, then why is it proper for your law to be passed?  What you're proposing is no different. It's "What they're doing offends me so I'm going to pass a law against it".

Discrimination by religious hardliners is a despicable thing and should be discouraged.If the British government allow gay or lesbian folk to take legal action against religious bigots who refuse to accomodate them in their hotels ( a hotel that is supposed to be for the purpose of accomodating people, not kicking them out with a " My God says you're evil, you sodomiser!")then I for one applaud that bit of "state interference".
In case you hadn't noticed we all live in a society.It is all well and good for freedom of speech, to let folks espouse religious nastiness, but when they start discriminating against a person because of their sexual preferences then that is the  start of something sinister that may spread.
How do you feel about the discrimination of Jews in Germany before the immediate rise of the Nazi party?
Some hotel manager says " Juden du bist verboten" and kicks him out of his hotel. It goes unchallenged by the libertarian, with his "leave folks to their private bigotry" philosophy, and suddenly Germany is jack boot central!
If governments have the responsibility to protect people, then they have the right to nip any religious bigotry in the bud.
It starts with discrimination of gays, or women not wearing a full headscarf, and ends with the world trade center attacks.

Quote from: ImperatorI subscribe each and every point on this post

When confronted to the homosexuality debate, we have to bear one important thing in mind: be it choice or genetic condition or whatever, it's a question of freedom. And as long as no one gets hurt, forced or whatever hurtful thing you may think of, that freedom should be respected and protected by all means, the same way it is protected in heterosexual relationships.

Would you agree that fining a religious bigot because they won't allow a gay couple to either enter, or sleep together, in their hotel is a good thing? Or do you think it is a step too far by the State, which invades the right of the landowner to do as he pleases?

Quote from: TechnomancerWho are you that you think someone else needs you to "tolerate" their actions before they are acceptable? What makes your opinion so important that it gives you the power to force someone to do something they don't want to?

Does a particular group (such as society as a whole) have the right to decide that certain behaviour is damaging to that group and should not be tolerated among members of that group?

Quote from: TechnomancerSomeone else could just as easily say "fining people who hire gays/lesbians would not be a bad thing, as it sends a message that such behaviour is not to be tolerated in this century". If someone said that and got enough people behind it to pass that law, would that then be legitimate and proper?

In a democracy it would be both legitimate and proper.  That's what democracy means and it's the reason we have constitutions and bills/conventions of rights to slow down the process until we (as a society) are absolutely positive that a major change like that would be a good idea

Still wouldn't make it right - at least not in my eyes

Quote from: TechnomancerIf not, then why is it proper for your law to be passed? What you're proposing is no different. It's "What they're doing offends me so I'm going to pass a law against it".

Of course.  That power cuts both ways